Well i guess its time to talk about what on the Ballot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric P

Yes. Those cities are now protected by the constitution because it limits casinos to these three towns.

---

Gaming originally passed BECAUSE it was limited to those three towns. Voters didn't want it all over the place. That was one of the sticking points of getting it passed in the first place.

Getting gaming elsewhere failed twice before. Hopefully, it will again. And in the interest of full disclosure, yeah, I have a dog in this fight. I live near and work in Black Hawk. This passes and lots of people up here get hurt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric P

Yes. Those cities are now protected by the constitution because it limits casinos to these three towns. This new amendment would allow 3 more locations, Aurora and I if I recall correctly, Pueblo and Durango. The protected casinos in those town would have to get creative to keep and lure new customers. It is also my understanding that gambling is already allowed at the proposed site via off site track betting. I see no problem allowing more.

I would prefer that the amendment removed the restriction on where casinos could be operated. I hate government protected enterprises, which the casinos in Black Hawk, Central City and Cripple Creek now enjoy. Let the free market decide the fate of businesses and eventually those towns. They were dead for a reason before the casinos.

As for the taxes, I will not pay them, only those who want to gamble. Hopefully plenty of tourists on their way to or from the ski slopes. Its not a forced tax, like a sales tax or property tax increase, its an elective tax on a non-essential entertainment activity.

---

Ideally, this would be great. But the law was passed 20+ years ago and here we are. The voters approved what we have now. And 68 doesn't promote "free market" anything. It allows ONE corporation to operate a casino in the Denver metro area (plus the other two areas after 5 years operating as a race track), and creates a monopoly via the constitution. The opposite of free market.

It is okay to gamble and smoke weed. It's damn annoying that everything seems to be tied to funding schools though. I feel like hardly any of that money actually ever makes it into the actual schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

It is okay to gamble and smoke weed. It's damn annoying that everything seems to be tied to funding schools though. I feel like hardly any of that money actually ever makes it into the actual schools.

---

Ya but it's cool to tell your friends and neighbors that you voted for the "school levy".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

It is okay to gamble and smoke weed. It's damn annoying that everything seems to be tied to funding schools though. I feel like hardly any of that money actually ever makes it into the actual schools.

---

Next we'll have "Shall the constitution of CO allow XYZ Company, and ONLY XYZ Company, to produce and sell 30 round ammunition magazine clips in Denver, Pueblo and Mesa County only? X% of revenue will go to fund public schools."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

It is okay to gamble and smoke weed. It's damn annoying that everything seems to be tied to funding schools though. I feel like hardly any of that money actually ever makes it into the actual schools.

---

This is what frustrates me about these issues, the people writing them KNOW they will not pass, so they say it is for the children and people vote for it. If they wrote a law taxing guns stores an additional 10% per year, but the first 2% of the first 4% goes to schools people would vote for it since they wont do the math or think it through. They just see one thing, "its for schools", Rhode Island saw it worked for pot smoking and is just using the same tactic.

I personally will vote no on it, I am not in favor of giving the state government more money they will misuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samurai

I personally will vote no on it, I am not in favor of giving the state government more money they will misuse.

---

That's pretty much where I'm at. I automatically assume that if funding schools is involved, there is something wrong with what is being voted on.

While I support raising money for public education when needed, the past has proven more money isn't fixing the educational problem in the USA. We as a society have been throwing money at schools for decades, and the education our children receive isn't rising with the influx of cash. Instead of smarter kids, we get common core curriculum. Enough is enough. It's time to change the system not the funding. And the system will not change if we keep supporting it as is.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Many years ago Ca tried this education funding thing if voters approved the state lottery. They showed us all the $$ the schools would be getting and it sounded great. After it passed, no extra $$ was to be found as they just moved the regular school budget to other stuff and replaced it with the same amount of lottery funds. I dont think 68 is gonna do what many think it will.

67 - NO; this is just another futile attempt to end-run Roe v Wade, as abhorrent as abortion is abortion is the law of the land, let it go, the end
68 - NO; I think gambling ruined Blackhawk and Central City for everyone except the people who made their millions off it, those used to be neat towns, now I won't go near them.
Prop 104 - YES; anything involving public monies or policy needs to open to the public
GMO - NO; just what we need, more government meddling in business

Colorado Supreme Court

Monica M Marquez - appointed by Ritter - do not retain
Brian D. Boatright - appointed by Hickenlooper - do not retain